Six months after the rage virus was inflicted on the population of Great Britain, the US Army helps to secure a small area of London for the survivors to repopulate and start again. But not everything goes according to plan.
Six challenging months after the horrific events of 28 Days Later... (2002), when the unstoppable Rage Virus decimated the entire city of London, the U.S. Army has restored order and is repopulating the quarantined city. However, after the first wave of returning refugees, an unsuspecting carrier of the highly transmittable pathogen enters the dead city, and unknowingly re-ignites the spread of the deadly infection. Indeed, the virus is not yet dead, and this time, it is more dangerous than ever. Will the nightmare begin again?Written by
Nick Riganas
The farm that Don and Alice hide out in the start of the film is the same farm that appears in Children of Men (2006). See more »
Goofs
(at 32:15) When the two children are riding the motorbike on Tower Bridge, just as you see Andy's face, there is a cameraman standing on the pavement. See more »
Like the first film, there are no opening credits of any kind once the company logos have appeared. Also like the first film, the title of the film appears only as a descriptive subtitle. See more »
Alternate Versions
There is an alternate version when Andy is sitting in a subway station and a train comes with all his undead or uninfected family and he gets on but then it is a hallucination. See more »
28 Weeks Later, the sequel to 28 Days Later, gamely carries on the tradition of intelligent zombie movies. The rage virus is back, and two kids may carry the antibody in their blood. Get them the hell out of a London that in its griminess rivals the stunning cinematography and dark set design of Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men.
Tough for me to advise anyone to leave the greatest town on earth, but the heroes need to go across the sea, getting there bloodier than ever. Although the new director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is more interested in special effects and quick cutting than the original's Danny Boyle, he does spare the outright revulsion should we ever see what cannibalism looks like up close, personal, and slow.
The dark passages and twisting camera, coupled with machine-gun rapid shots, make the movie frequently inscrutable, not a big deal to horror fans but a frustration to us commoners who think the premise has promise of showing human nature at its Darwinian worst if we can only figure out what's happening. That mysterious mise en scene keeps us from connecting with the principals as we did with Cillian Murphy's and Naomie Harris's characters in 28 Days Later.
But gore is to the fore, and that's just fine with those who first screamed at zombies in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead and laughed at them in Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead. What I said about 28 Days Later shows what's missing in its sequel: "The eerie set design is appropriate without being overdone (Rod Serling would have approved its restraint), the characters are real without being overwrought (especially the women, who are usually sacrificed to too much emoting), and the subtexts about contemporary crises are clear without distracting from the science fiction genre itself." Correlations with HIV and Iraq are not as easy as they were with the original.
It's a nail biter and organ orgy, with just enough scary false starts and stupid people. I was engaged the whole time, except when an attractive film critic gave me her zombie embrace out of sheer fright. That's not a bad thing.
39 of 81 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this
28 Weeks Later, the sequel to 28 Days Later, gamely carries on the tradition of intelligent zombie movies. The rage virus is back, and two kids may carry the antibody in their blood. Get them the hell out of a London that in its griminess rivals the stunning cinematography and dark set design of Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men.
Tough for me to advise anyone to leave the greatest town on earth, but the heroes need to go across the sea, getting there bloodier than ever. Although the new director Juan Carlos Fresnadillo is more interested in special effects and quick cutting than the original's Danny Boyle, he does spare the outright revulsion should we ever see what cannibalism looks like up close, personal, and slow.
The dark passages and twisting camera, coupled with machine-gun rapid shots, make the movie frequently inscrutable, not a big deal to horror fans but a frustration to us commoners who think the premise has promise of showing human nature at its Darwinian worst if we can only figure out what's happening. That mysterious mise en scene keeps us from connecting with the principals as we did with Cillian Murphy's and Naomie Harris's characters in 28 Days Later.
But gore is to the fore, and that's just fine with those who first screamed at zombies in George Romero's Night of the Living Dead and laughed at them in Edgar Wright's Shaun of the Dead. What I said about 28 Days Later shows what's missing in its sequel: "The eerie set design is appropriate without being overdone (Rod Serling would have approved its restraint), the characters are real without being overwrought (especially the women, who are usually sacrificed to too much emoting), and the subtexts about contemporary crises are clear without distracting from the science fiction genre itself." Correlations with HIV and Iraq are not as easy as they were with the original.
It's a nail biter and organ orgy, with just enough scary false starts and stupid people. I was engaged the whole time, except when an attractive film critic gave me her zombie embrace out of sheer fright. That's not a bad thing.